MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ecological selection maintains cytonuclear incompatibilities in hybridizing sunflowers

2008· article· en· W2172123395 on OpenAlexaff
Julianno B. M. Sambatti, Daniel Ortíz-Barrientos, Eric J. Baack, Loren H. Rieseberg

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsBiologyReproductive isolationEcological speciationEcological selectionEcologyHybridHabitatGenetic algorithmIntrogressionAdaptation (eye)Species complexEvolutionary biologySelection (genetic algorithm)Gene flowBotanyGenetic variationPopulationGeneticsPhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the recent renaissance in studies of ecological speciation, the connection between ecological selection and the evolution of reproductive isolation remains tenuous. We tested whether habitat adaptation of cytoplasmic genomes contributes to the maintenance of reproductive barriers in hybridizing sunflower species, Helianthus annuus and Helianthus petiolaris. We transplanted genotypes of the parental species, reciprocal F1 hybrids and all eight possible backcross combinations of nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes into the contrasting xeric and mesic habitats of the parental species. Analysis of survivorship across two growing seasons revealed that the parental species' cytoplasms were strongly locally adapted and that cytonuclear interactions (CNIs) significantly affected the fitness and architecture of hybrid plants. A significant fraction of the CNIs have transgenerational effects, perhaps due to divergence in imprinting patterns. Our results suggest a common means by which ecological selection may contribute to speciation and have significant implications for the persistence of hybridizing species.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations115
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207